Abandon the toss in Test cricket?
Yes, the proposal has come from Ricky Ponting, and is being backed by Michael Holding and Steve Waugh. The novel suggestion, aimed at reducing the home advantage, includes handing the decision to bat or bowl to the visiting team captain.
Given majority of the teams in recent years have been winning Tests in their own backyard – where ground staff usually prepare tracks favouring the home cause – the idea, though plain, sounds interesting.
Take a very recent example: England’s booming win in the Ashes Test at Nottingham.
The million dollar query here is: had England batted first on that ultra-seaming pitch where Stuart Broad’s eight-for smothered Aussies for 60 in the first session of the match, would the hosts have met the same fate? In response the hosts piled up 391 as the conditions eased up a bit.
The 3-2 series triumph for Alastair Cook, following a resounding innings win by Australia in the final Test at The Oval, indicates it could have been an entirely reverse scenario had Michael Clarke won the toss at Trent Bridge.
Not to forget the hurtling Mitchell Johnson alongside ever-improving Mitchell Starc were there to exploit the conditions.
So, was it the toss in Nottingham that decided the Ashes, allowing England to make full use of the well-known home conditions? If one the answer is an absolute yes – or even a tentative one – it gives rise to a major contention: has the flip of the coin, overtaking a player's skills, become the primary factor in determining the outcome of a Test match?
If it has, why not abandon it?
“That's not such a bad thing. At the end of the day I think there's probably too much emphasis placed on the toss and the conditions away from home. I don't mind the authorities looking at some other options,” Waugh says.
Pakistan batting great, Javed Miandad, looks the other way.
“Toss is good for cricket. It gives way to a lot of discussion on television and radio. Everyone remains attached and curious from the time when the coin is in the air till a captain wins and takes a decision to bat or otherwise,” Miandad told APP.
He further said that winning or losing the toss could also impact preparations of a home side so it is equal for the two playing teams and therefore there was no logic to abandon it.
Let us now examine the pros and cons of the novel notion.
Pros first.
If the touring team skipper decides whether to bat or bowl first, it will definitely lower any extra advantage that the host side may have at a certain venue on a certain pitch, particularly one which changes (or can change) over five days of play. This situation is likely to generate close battles and the likelihood of drab draws will diminish. Players will be forced to improve their game.
Secondly, connected to the first point, the visiting teams will have very less room to complain about the pitch to home team cricket authorities (including the curators), excessively favouring the hosts. Touring captains will have very little to hide behind during press conferences.
Thirdly, after getting the right to bat or bowl first, touring captain, coach along with the entire squad will make more preparations for away Tests, knowing with the tactical luxury they would have only themselves to blame if they suffer a Nottingham-like loss.
Similarly, the hosts’ camp, kept guessing by the visiting captain until match day, will also make extra endeavours in order to play harder, resulting in more competitive cricket.
Imagine how much demanding the task would be for Steve Smith if Cook, in a highly unusual call, opts to bat first on a sizzling Perth track in the next Ashes and his manage to score big in the first innings.
The quality of the game, one cautiously feels, will rise.
Fourthly and lastly, the proposed no-toss scenario will make the game’s international framework equal for all, giving teams fair chance to outsmart the opposition: a visiting skipper possessing the right to decide to bat or bowl in away Tests, will relinquish the same right to the opponent captain when his team undertakes the tour of the rival country. Home sides will be put under pressure as a result as opposed to the tourists.
Now to the cons, some emphatic ones.
To begin with, those challenging the idea will say that if the toss is thrown out, chances are that the game will become predominantly conventional taking away the captivating element of surprise upon winning or losing the toss.
Touring captain will know the peculiarity of the venues, and so he along with his player and team management will make a plan in advance. There will be no on-the-spot eleventh hour adjustment – an exciting factor in any sport. Only at the venues where playing conditions vary too much the touring side will be in a slight fix whether to bat or bowl first.
Secondly, when the game plan, or at least its outline, is prepared in advance the selection of visiting squad will also be made in accordance with that very plan. Introduction of new faces will be rare, selectors will hesitate in taking risks, and will be choosing new players mainly on the basis of their domestic performances on the home pitches those lads are going to face in the away Tests. The bulk of the strategy will be dependent on ‘where we are going to play in that country’ rather than relying on promising youngsters’ flair. A chunk of cricket’s natural exuberance, it is feared, may well be compromised in these circumstances. The world may miss Steve Smiths, David Warners, Yasir Shahs, Sarfraz Ahmeds, Joe Roots, Hashim Amlas, Dale Steyns, ABs, Kumar Sangakkaras, Virat Kohlis and Brendon McCullums in the time to come!
And not just tourists, even the hosts would be figuring out -- prior to the start of the game -- what the opposition may decide on the first day; after all it’s their den! So inherent tactics and counter tactics would be less to spot, and the game may get too much mechanical.
Furthermore, in this entire semi pre-set scenario, there are strong chances that spectators as well as TV audience will move away from Test cricket which is already facing rising challenges from the slam-bang commercially-attractive Twenty20 Internationals and national leagues plus a plethora of 50-over-a-side clashes producing results within hours.
And in a rebuttal to the level-playing-field for all, claimed by those calling to get rid of the toss, one has all the right to ask: if the toss is no more, then what about the quality of a team outdoing the opponents on their turf regardless of winning or losing the toss (currently, South Africa hold an impressive record in away Tests)? Who would recognise them? Who would be called the world’s top-ranked Test outfit if there is no toss? What set of criteria will be devised by the ICC for ranking Test teams? And looking at it widely, how will the remarkable yesteryear teams who excelled under Waugh, Imran Khan, Viv Richards, Clive Lloyd and Ian Chappell in away Tests be then compared with the current and future squads?
Last but not the least, abandoning the toss in Tests can be a double-edged sword, giving rise to pitch-related debates. Nature and condition of the pitch is considered crucial in Test cricket. Home sides are likely to produce dead tracks if they fear conditions going against them which will mean the ICC would have to step in.
Interestingly, the MCC, the game’s law-making body, has discarded the idea forthwith. “The MCC feels that ‘the toss’ is an integral part of a game of cricket, and that, since the Laws of Cricket apply to every game at every level throughout the world, the Club is most unlikely to change the Law in dispensing with the toss,” Laws of Cricket Advisor Mark Williams said.
Showing his concern over the dearth of quality Test players in present world cricket who should have the calibre, dedication and grit of their predecessors, Miandad rightly pointed out: “Test cricket means putting players to test in some tough conditions. I believe the test of a player begins when he is made to play in alien conditions. A quality batsman or bowler can perform everywhere; whether he is at home or away.”
Bottom line: the idea of giving the touring team leader the licence to decide is a matter of radical significance and therefore requires a thorough, technical and candid analysis. Any hasty and half-baked decision in this regard will spoil Tests matches – the essence of cricket. One earnestly hopes the ICC and boards of Test playing nations will take this into account.